Natural Law theory can be used as well to help us analyze and resolve this ethical dilemma. According to natural law, the moral standards that decide human behaviors come from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world around them. In this case, Mr. Doe is dying from cancer and even with further treatment, the doctor believes the patient will die from his disease. Natural law describes that we have a predisposition to preserve our lives. Mr. Doe wants to do everything that he can to preserve his life. The principle of double effect talks about an action that causes both a good and bad effects and if the action causes a good effect we need continue, but if it causes a bad effect the person needs to stop (Munson, 2012, p. 887). Mr. Doe if given the additional chemotherapy would die and if the doctor does not treat the patient with additional therapy the patient would
…show more content…
There are four conditions that must be me in this principle.
The first condition to be met is that the action needs to be good or indifferent. The intention of Mr. Doe’s action of continuing treatment and the physician’s action of not treating the patient are meant to both be good, indifferent actions. The second condition infers that a good effect cannot be reached through the means of a bad effect (Munson, 2012, p. 887). Even though the patient believes that continuing the treatment would help him, it may, in the end actually cause death rather than help to treat the disease. So Mr. Doe by choosing to continue with treatment would be causing a bad effect and in the end it might not even treat his disease. Third, the motive in which the action is to be accomplished should cause a good effect only. As we look at Mr. Doe and the action he wanted to pursue, we can see that continuing the treatment may or may not have caused a good effect. Since we are unable to determine if actual continuation of treatment would hasten his death, we are unable to
There are four conditions that must be me in this principle.
The first condition to be met is that the action needs to be good or indifferent. The intention of Mr. Doe’s action of continuing treatment and the physician’s action of not treating the patient are meant to both be good, indifferent actions. The second condition infers that a good effect cannot be reached through the means of a bad effect (Munson, 2012, p. 887). Even though the patient believes that continuing the treatment would help him, it may, in the end actually cause death rather than help to treat the disease. So Mr. Doe by choosing to continue with treatment would be causing a bad effect and in the end it might not even treat his disease. Third, the motive in which the action is to be accomplished should cause a good effect only. As we look at Mr. Doe and the action he wanted to pursue, we can see that continuing the treatment may or may not have caused a good effect. Since we are unable to determine if actual continuation of treatment would hasten his death, we are unable to